The Taliban Have Seized U.S. Military Biometrics Devices | Hacker News Reader

The Taliban Have Seized U.S. Military Biometrics Devices

theintercept.com

59 pointsedeion65 comments

What's worse is the billions in armored vehicles and weapons that can be used against those who resist them. If anything, the Taliban are now in a stronger military position than in 2001.

Without supply chains most of it will be useless in a year or two.

"a year or two" smh

Phew ! - That’s only one or two years of suffering for the Afghan population.

Who cares ?! /s

For the planes maybe. Don't see why they couldn't use a certain number of those vehicles to scavenge parts from for a very long time.

In most cases where the US has supplied this kind of equipment, the locals don’t have the skills to actually work on the vehicles. The maintenance work in these situations is usually contracted out to a company from the US (just another part of the $2T grift).

They can probably figure out how to fix the ground vehicles and keep them running, but aircraft without a proper maintenance schedule will break down very quickly.

I'm sure people said Cuba would run out of cars in the 60s.

They might be able to use all that gear per the manual and best practices, but they'll make use of it however they can. Humans do that.

I hope history will look back at that and see it as a "plowshares" dump, where native ingenuity took tons of scrap iron and reformed into the infrastructure of a better society. I figure it's about as likely as being canrally pleasured by a pink unicorn, but its a pleasant fantasy.

There is a stark difference between old cars and modern tech, especially when we take into consideration repairability and right to repair being pressing issues.

Could you please explain why you believe "right to repair" is relevant in this case?

Presumably, if the customer doesn't have the right to repair then the manufacturer would be able to make parts that are exceptionally difficult to repair without specialized knowledge and tools. Or worse, enforce cryptographic locks on any software/firmware to prevent unauthorized changes.

I think right to repair is about ensuring that the customer can make reasonable repairs to the product, and the manufacturer not infringing on their rights when designing the product.

It’s military equipment. It’s easy as heck to repair and the manuals are all online.

That doesn't hold [1].

> Manufacturers can prevent the Department of Defense from repairing certain equipment, which puts members of the military at risk.

[1] https://perma.cc/HS7U-2A9H

As someone who worked with mechanics, they didn’t seem to have any trouble in theater. In the US, only contractors were allowed to do some things.

Easy to repair if you have spare parts… this supply chain is key.

Or working ones to cannibalize from other ones.

> Presumably, if the (...)

In this case, the "customer" is a sovereign state that has the ability to set its own laws.

Why does anyone think that "right to repair" applies in this case?

From another reply:

> Ah, I see you don't know that companies can "prohibit" chip manufacturers from selling specific chips to third parties [1,2]. Moreover, schematics, repair guidelines, and all sorts of other tools are not available to independent repair shops, which render repairs very difficult, Louis Rossmann has had frequent rants about this on his channel on Youtube [2], and is one of the most prominent advocates of the right to repair.

> It follows then that unless right to repair passes/exists, obtaining replacement parts for any devices is exceptionally difficult. There is therefore a stark contrast between 1960s cars and their very limited electronics and current tech that relies on often hundreds of chips and software to operate.

> [1] https://www.vox.com/the-goods/2019/7/3/18761691/right-to-rep...

> [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qCFP9P7lIvI

It is not that the right to repair applies in this case, but rather because the right to repair does not exist/has not passed, the procurement of chips and other electronics necessary to repair the hardware may be difficult or outright impossible.

The cars that we compare to (1960) are orders of magnitude simpler than modern day electronics and not reliant on megacorps allowing others to obtain schematics and microchips.

Ah, I see you don't know that companies can "prohibit" chip manufacturers from selling specific chips to third parties [1,2]. Moreover, schematics, repair guidelines, and all sorts of other tools are not available to independent repair shops, which render repairs very difficult, Louis Rossmann has had frequent rants about this on his channel on Youtube [2], and is one of the most prominent advocates of the right to repair.

It follows then that unless right to repair passes/exists, obtaining replacement parts for any devices is exceptionally difficult. There is therefore a stark contrast between 1960s cars and their very limited electronics and current tech that relies on often hundreds of chips and software to operate.

[1] https://www.vox.com/the-goods/2019/7/3/18761691/right-to-rep...

[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qCFP9P7lIvI

Keeping an AK-47 running with kyber pass manufactured parts is manageable, keeping a Blackhawk helicopter is not.

I don't think anyone expects them to fly a Blackhawk, but armored ground vehicles are very likely

If the Taliban now represent the official .gov of Afghanistan it is not a crime for any company to provide supply and services.

Edit: I am not talking about US-American companies only.

It absolutely is.

Or do you think it's ok to supply North Korea?

Afghanistan is not yet on the list[1]. If the new government doesn’t uphold its obligations under Doha, there is a good chance it will be added to it in the future.

1. https://www.state.gov/state-sponsors-of-terrorism/

"Afghanistan" (the recently routed government) is not on the list. The Taliban is not a (yet) recognized nation-state in most Western countries. It'll take time for these lists to get updated with recent events.

Considering that the Taliban is/was a hostile party to an active US military operation, starting economic activities with them without explicit government approval is probably not a good idea.

The Taliban (in Afghanistan; the Pakistani Taliban is on both the Treasury and State lists), as well as a very large number of persons and organizations associated with the Taliban separately, is on the Treasury Department OFAC Sanctions list even though for diplomatic reasons the Taliban has not been included on the State Department list of international terrorist organizations.

I didn't say it is "ok". I said it is not a crime.

Trump ended the economic sanctions on the Taliban as part of the peace deal (or at least committed to by Aug 20 2020). Maybe weapons sanctions are still in place though.

That equipment can be decommissioned from the air with low risk to allied forces.

Most of the Afghan civilian population do not have the benefit of an air force but many of them will die from US-built (and now Taliban-operated) equipment all the same. Sure, the civilians are not "allied forces" but it's still a shit move to give their opponents more weapons.

Yes, it was a mistake to leave the equipment, I don’t dispute that. I’m stating that the problem can be fixed from the air.

What about innocent civilians?

Provide ample warning abandoned military hardware is considered in the kill box.

I saw this recently: "We lost the war. Losing wars often puts you in a worse position. That's one reason starting wars you are unlikely to win is a bad idea." https://twitter.com/nberlat/status/1426941800468652039

That should be obvious to everyone, but in 2001 it was unpatriotic and politically incorrect to ask whether the US was capable of winning the war.

As part of the Doha agreement the Taliban agreed not to support Al-Qaeda. Not a victory but it was basically the US casus belli.

Yeah. But there were a significant number of people who grew up seeing the Russians get beaten in Afghanistan, thought it was a decent lesson to learn without being involved, and then lo and behold, your country gets into a land war in Asia and gets to learn it for themselves.

I'd go further and say that in 2001 "the war" wasn't even that well defined. It seemed to be more about the action of attacking rather than any coherent vision. Iraq was at least up for debate, whereas Afghanistan was like well of course we need to attack them "back" how could you think otherwise?

I would be surprised if those armored vehicles could be easily turned on by turning a key. Can the talibans just hop in and drive them?

Why do we leave so much behind? Is it impractical to remove economically or there’s no money that be made from it? I understand large parts of it was given to the Afghan army but it’s jarring to see. With regards to anything other than a weapon, we should be able to brick everything with a firmware update in the future.

It wasn’t needed. The equipment is useless outside of theater. No one wants it. It’s a clear as day example of why the war was a waste of money from the start.

There's no accountability and the equipment already served its purpose.

Julian Assange, 2011: "The goal is to use Afghanistan to wash money out of the tax bases of the US and Europe through Afghanistan and back into the hands of a transnational security elite. The goal is an endless war, not a successful war"

https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/1427929346262642688

US veteran who oversaw training of Afghan forces, 2021: "I would sit in on staff meetings, because part of my position there was with a Joint Command that was building the Afghan military and police force — the division that I worked with was about training and policy for the Afghan police. And that also included arming and funding them.

I don’t think I could overstate that this was a system just basically designed for funneling money and wasting or losing equipment."

https://mtracey.substack.com/p/a-big-money-funneling-operati...

>Why do we leave so much behind?

because it was part of the deal? It's the same playbook used to equip ISIS back when toppling asad was the objective. It's not like none of these could be dismantled or outright destroyed. That and Taliban was created by none other than US with the help of Pakistan. It's not like US and Taliban are strangers, and surprise surprise, taliban isn't even in the designated terrorist list apparently. You also have UK military head doing PR for Taliban. Taliban takeover was with the approval of US, and weapon transfer was part of the deal.

The more equipment the army leaves behind, the more will need replacing, and the more profit the arms manufacturers make :P

> we should be able to brick everything with a firmware update

I am curious how permenantly-bricked a tank would be without the electronics. Sure replacing the electronics would be a pain in the ass, but I would imagine it’s still orders of magnitude easier than building a whole tank from scratch?

They'll probably be able to get it minimally working, but much of modern weapons tech is in the software, targeting systems, precision firing timing, etc. It's possible these tanks are too old for that to be a factor though.

It is theoretically possible to lock down the system to only authorized users, much like what we see with TPMs and modern smartphone security. This is supposed to be part of the reason the F35 program was so expensive - every component is cryptographically signed and verified.

I was part of the retrograde in 2011/2012, the first time an administration thought leaving was a good idea. I didn't do the actual retrograde work, my unit was designated to continue operations, but I did have to inspect gear they proposed sending back.

- Gear has to be extremely clean in order to send it back. It has to have every bit of sand removed from it, and I mean every. This order comes from customs.

- Once the above requirement is at-play there becomes a cost benefit analysis to what gear is worth taking and what's not. The remaining gear is usually destroyed somehow and possibly buried. This includes gun parts and attachments.

- the effort to snag gear from small bases like observation posts is difficult. Some of these places are in military advantageous places, which also make them difficult places to get vehicles to. If you can't get a logtrain there, then you've got to fly a helicopter. The Taliban are no stranger to setting off the rocket detection systems on helicopters.

- retrograde is literally spare troops sitting around hand scrubbing gear on a very long and boring deployment. I felt terrible for these people. Morale is always low in these units.

The last way I can think of is the most infuriating. I don't know how to speak to this scenario without telling a story, so here goes:

I was in a region called Musa Qalah. My truck was ordered to help bolster operational capabilities while a base was handed over to the Afghan National Army. The base was called Habib. On our way there we encountered a truck loaded down openly with munitions and jovial men that was weaving in and out of our convoy. When we requested permission to engage with what was obviously a hostile truck we were reminded that the Rules of Engagement as set by the administration were, "You're not to fire until you have been fired upon." The truck eventually detoured from us and we arrived at the base. It was a small place, maybe 8-10 posts in total. Marines had been using it to patrol the nearby town and keep the area peaceful (generally the Taliban will attack the base instead of infesting the town, which is a bit of a pseudo-win while schools and infrastructure get in queue to be opened up). It was a pretty average base from what I saw. Lots of concertina wire, the posts were sandbagged but not the most built up. Decent fighting positions though. The units doing stage one of the retrograde (collect all the gear) were doing their thing. I did see the ANA at some point. We tend to leave them with gear like minesweepers, radios, (I could see bioscanners being part of this). Basically anything the average infantry unit would need. The thing I noted is that there were only 8 ANA including the commander. On the last day I was watching the mountains outside of the base and I saw a series of figures on top of the mountains. Initially dismissed as goat herders, I started watching them through my rifle scope. They were holding guns and there were munitions crates stacked all along the horizon. They were waiting. No more ANA showed up. 8 people to staff 10 posts. We were told the mission was to turn over the base to the ANA and that staying behind to help them defend would be counter to that mission. We left. Habib went dark on radio over the next two days.

It's possible the ANA took their gear and left, they made a deal with the Taliban, or that they were slaughtered. You can imagine where the gear goes when troops aren't prepared for how to destroy it properly or don't have the tools necessary.

The equipment was given to the ANA for them to fight the Taliban. All of it was seized when ANA forces surrendered, fled or lost.

A lot of the equipment was left for the Afghan forces. The worries are (a) if the Taliban will use it and (b) is there anything in that equipment that the Chinese/Russian/etc. forces can reverse engineer.

> Frightening people man. Bush tried to buy votes towards the end of the election. Goes around, you know, selling weapons to everyone, getting that military industrial complex vote happening for him. Sold 160 fighter jets to Korea and then 240 tanks to Kuwait and then goes around making speeches why he should be Commander-in-Chief because, “We still live in a dangerous world.”

> Thanks to you, you fucker! What are you doing? Last week Kuwaitis had nothing but rocks!

> They’re arming the fucking world man.

-- Bill Hicks

I suppose it is a joke but Kuwait had tanks before that. 200 Yugoslavian M84s.

I also assume that was the elder Bush (based on your Yugoslavian tanks comment). Since we literally had just fought a war on Kuwait's behalf, arming them seems reasonable.

Of course it's a joke. It's Bill Hicks. Wish he were still around so we could hear what he would make of "But they had 200 Yugoslavian tanks".

Too bad those weren't built like Internet of Things that need to call home to metrics and ads and stuff, otherwise they brick.

They would have become abandonware.

Perhaps getting the advertisers hands on the military will solve all global conflicts?

We should never have left valuable material behind. How often has our own money and technology been used against us? We need to learn out lesson and do better. If we planned on leaving we had time to get that type of technology out of there first or destroyed the equipment beyond the point of repair.

Taliban would love to use any technology that's available to them considering their position.

Agreed.

I don't think "hate the West" is even the right way to put it. They're much more concerned with the islamic world, and turning "bad" (secular) muslims into "good" (shariah) muslims. It's not like they love the west either, but they fully expect non-muslims nations to be evil and don't care nearly as much.

The west is more of a useful propaganda tool to achieve the real goal of establishing the islamic caliphate (like from ottoman days).

That's a pretty naive and reductive way to describe the situation. The relationship between early al qaeda days and various US agencies who armed and trained them is very well established.

Both what you and GP said can be true simultaneously, and in my opinion is.

Thank you for your informative contribution.

What else would you like me to say?

It is factually true that the Taliban and ISIS wanted to achieve cultural domination. Al Queda I'm not so sure about, but hell, they're religious extremists who sometimes masquerade as a violent and totalitarian political party.

It is also true that back in the 80's the US funded, specifically, Al Queda and the Taliban for various things. It doesn't mean they were our allies, just an underhanded way of doing policy. You saw this on repeat in Syria where we were giving weapons and funding to people that we'd, in any larger context, consider terrorists.

That just agrees with what's already been said. If you want me to disagree with anything it's your use of "naive". Ironically, if you can't perceive both as true (since they're both factually true), who is the naive one? My guess is on the person telling themselves a half baked truth.

How do you get the stuff to a place where you can get it out of country? Once it’s there, how can you get enough planes to get it out? Is the equipment even worth it now that we are not fighting a forever war here?

Those are valid points: Is it too expensive to get technology out? Or is it even possible?

If this is the case can't we destroy the equipment so that it can't be repaired or ever used again? My hope is their is a solution that doesn't involve allowing our technology to fall into the wrong hands.

The material wasn't "left behind". It was given to the ANA for them to fight the Taliban.

But the ANA was folding so fast according to news reports. Maybe there was no way to prevent biometric equipment from falling into the Talban's hands. I guess my hope is that there were better solutions that didn't hurt us.

I'm actually surprised at the response to my comment. I think I'm not expressing myself clearly. My thoughts keep wandering to what could have been done and the costs of the Taliban possessing advanced technology. Sorry for the Pollyanna mindset here.

We didn't plan on leaving. We planned on winning.

Unfortunately, it was a bad plan.

You can get rid of ID papers with a lighter, getting rid of biometrics will require poking out your eyeballs.

A very dire predicament. Being identified, and killed, or having to live the rest of your life without sight.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com